InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Rhode Island says service contracts are not insurance
On July 15, the Rhode Island governor signed H 5674, which clarifies that service contracts, vehicle theft protection product warranties, and vehicle maintenance agreements are not considered insurance and are therefore exempt from the state’s insurance code. The bill also amends definitions under the law’s chapter relating to service contracts. The amendments take effect January 1, 2020.
7th Circuit holds collection fee was authorized by contract, did not violate FDCPA
On July 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a percentage-based collection fee was expressly authorized by the contractual agreement and therefore, did not violate the FDCPA. According to the opinion, a consumer entered into a contract with an amusement park for a monthly pass, which stated the consumer would “be billed for any amounts that are due and owing plus any costs (including reasonable attorney’s fees) incurred by [the park] in attempting to collect amounts due.” After the consumer fell behind on payments for the pass, he received a collection letter from a collection agency, seeking the principal amount owed, plus $43.28 in costs to be paid directly to the collection agency or to the amusement park. The consumer filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the debt collector “charged a fee not ‘expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt’” in violation of the FDCPA. The district court held a bench trial and found that the collection fee was expressly authorized by the language in the consumer’s contract.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court, but noted its decision was in contrast to previous decisions by the 11th and 8th Circuits (both of which have held that percentage-based fees do violate the FDCPA when the underlying contract uses the term “costs.”) The appellate court noted that the contract “allows for ‘any costs,’ and the most reasonable reading of that term is to include fees paid in attempting to collect.” Moreover, the contract “explicitly provided that the term ‘costs’ includes attorney’s fees,” and therefore, the appellate court declined “to hold that the term ‘costs’ bears such a narrow meaning when the contract explicitly tells [the court] that the term is broad enough to include more.” Therefore, the collection fee, according to the appellate court, fell within the contract’s language authorizing “any costs” of the collection and did not violate the FDCPA.
Credit reporting agency agrees to multi-agency settlement over 2017 data breach
On July 22, the CFPB, FTC, and 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico announced a settlement of up to $700 million with a major credit reporting agency to resolve federal and state investigations into a 2017 data breach that reportedly compromised sensitive information for approximately 147 million consumers. According to the complaints (see here and here) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the company allegedly engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by, among other things, (i) failing to provide reasonable security for the sensitive personal information stored within its network; (ii) deceiving consumers about its data security program capabilities; and (iii) failing to patch its network after being alerted in 2017 to a critical security vulnerability.
Under the terms of the proposed settlements (see here and here), pending final court approval, the company will pay up to $425 million in monetary relief to consumers and provide credit monitoring to affected individuals, as well as six free credit reports each year for seven years to all U.S. consumers. The company must also pay $175 million to 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and a $100 million civil money penalty to the Bureau. The $425 million fund will also compensate consumers who bought credit- or identity-monitoring services from the company and paid other expenses as a result of the breach. The company must also, among other things, implement a comprehensive information security program that will require annual assessments of security risks and safeguard measures, obtain third-party information security assessments, and acquire annual certifications from the board of directors that the company has complied with the settlements.
Federal banking agencies and FinCEN issue statement on risk-focused BSA/AML examinations
On July 22, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and the OCC along with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), released a joint statement to improve transparency of their risk-focused approach to Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) supervision. The statement outlines common practices for assessing a bank’s risk profile, including (i) leveraging available information, including internal BSA/AML risk assessments, independent audits, and results from previous examinations; (ii) contacting banks between examinations or before finalizing the scope of an examination; and (iii) considering the bank’s ability to identify, measure, monitor, and control risks. Examiners will use the information from the risk assessments to scope and plan the examination, as well as to evaluate the adequacy of the bank’s BSA/AML compliance program. The statement notes that the extent of examination activities needed to evaluate a bank’s BSA/AML compliance program, “generally depends on a bank’s risk profile and the quality of its risk management processes.”
Kraninger: CFPB's focus is preventing consumer harm, and state and federal collaboration
On July 18, Kathy Kraninger, Director of the CFPB, spoke before the Exchequer Club where she discussed the Bureau’s strategy for preventing consumer harm. Kraninger discussed her ongoing “listening tour”—in which she has met with and received feedback from “more than 600 consumer groups, consumers, state and local government officials, military personnel, academics, non-profits, faith leaders, financial institutions, and former and current Bureau officials and staff”—and commented on ways in which feedback received from these stakeholders has helped shape her approach. Kraininger highlighted four “tools” that the Bureau has at its disposal to execute its mission: education, rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement.
- Education. According to Kraninger, the Bureau’s focus reflects a “consumer-centric definition of financial well-being” designed to empower consumers when protecting their own interests and choosing the appropriate financial products and services. Specifically, Kraninger referred to the Bureau’s “Misadventures in Money Management” financial education tool for active-duty servicemembers, as well as its “Start Small, Save Up” initiative, which is designed to increase consumers’ ability to handle urgent expenses.
- Rulemaking. Kraninger commented that the Bureau will continue to comply with Congressional mandates to promulgate rules or address specific issues through rulemaking. However, where the Bureau has discretion, it “will focus on preventing consumer harm by maximizing informed consumer choice, and prohibiting acts or practices that undermine the ability of consumers to choose the products and services that are best for them.” Kraninger spoke of the need for increased transparency and deregulatory efforts and highlighted a recent change to the comment period for the Bureau’s Payday and Debt Collection rulemakings, as well as the consideration of potential changes to the existing Remittances Rule based on responses to a call for evidence.
- Supervision. Kraninger stressed that “[s]upervision is the heart of the agency,” as it helps to prevent violations of laws and regulations from happening in the first place. The Bureau’s approach will focus on ensuring supervision is effective, efficient, and consistent, and will explore ways to incentivize institutions to have in place good compliance management systems. Kraninger noted that, as chair of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, she will focus on coordinating and collaborating with the other agencies to advance consumer protections.
- Enforcement. Kraninger noted that the Bureau will continue to enforce against bad actors that do not comply with the law, as “[a] purposeful enforcement regime can foster compliance, deter unlawful conduct, help prevent consumer harm, and right wrongs.” She referenced the Bureau’s history of collaborating with state and federal partners on enforcement actions, and stressed her commitment to ensuring enforcement matters are handled as expeditiously as possible. Kraninger also specifically drew attention to the Bureau’s collaborative approach in its recent advisory on elder financial exploitation (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
OFAC sanctions international network involved in procuring materials for Iranian nuclear program
On July 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13382 against an international network of seven entities and five individuals involved in the procurement of sensitive materials for sanctioned elements of Iran’s nuclear program. According to OFAC, the network—based in Iran, China, and Belgium—acted as a procurement network in order to acquire materials controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which were then used in facilities belonging to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. OFAC noted that while United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 does permit certain NSG-controlled items to go to Iran, participants are required to receive advance, case-by-case approval, which the identified entities and individuals in this action did not receive. As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of these persons that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated entities and individuals. Moreover, OFAC warned foreign financial institutions that if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for any of the designated entities and individuals, they may be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through account sanctions which, if imposed, could restrict their access to the U.S. financial system.
OFAC sanctions four Venezuelan DGCIM officials
On July 19, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned four officials of Venezuela’s General Directorate of Military Counterintelligence (DGCIM). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the DGCIM was sanctioned by OFAC on July 11, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, for operating in the country’s defense and security sector. According to OFAC, the designations of the four individuals were pursuant to E.O. 13692, following the arrest, physical abuse, and death of a Venezuelan Navy Captain. As a result of the designations, all property and interests in property of the designated persons within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with these individuals and entities.
District Court concludes collection attempt on old debt did not violate FDPCA
On July 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, concluding the attempted collection of an old debt did not violate the FDCPA. According to the opinion, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against the debt collector alleging the collector violated the FDCPA by (i) “falsely representing the legal status of the debt”; and (ii) using “false representations and/or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt,” when it sent a collection letter in March 2017 attempting to collect on a debt that allegedly incurred before 2009. The debt collector moved for summary judgment arguing that the consumer did not have standing and that the claim failed on the merits. The district court agreed with the debt collector, concluding that the consumer did not have standing to pursue the FDCPA claim because she did not incur any concrete injury, noting she made no claims that she was misled by the letter or confused about the status of her debt, nor did she pay on the debt or make a promise to pay. Moreover, the district court agreed that the debt collector adequately informed the consumer about the status of her debt, stating “[t]he letter clearly states that ‘[t]he law limits how long you can be sued on a debt’ and states that, ‘[d]ue to the age of this debt, we will not sue you for it[.]’” Lastly, the district court found that in order to comply with the FDCPA, the debt collectors were not required to inform consumers of the “supposed risks of partial payments or entering a payment plan.”
OFAC sanctions four individuals for human rights violations in Iraq
On July 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against two militia figures and two former Iraqi governors for alleged human rights abuses or corruption violations of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. According to OFAC, the four individuals committed the corruption-and abuse-related actions “in areas where persecuted religious communities are struggling to recover from the horrors inflicted on them by ISIS.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the designated persons within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with these individuals and entities.
North Carolina AG sues unlicensed debt collector for multiple violations
On July 17, the North Carolina attorney general announced a lawsuit filed against multiple debt collection entities and their owner for allegedly collecting or attempting to collect on consumer debts in North Carolina without filing the appropriate registration or obtaining the necessary permits to operate as a debt collection agency in the state. According to the complaint, the entities, based and registered in Texas, purchased unpaid debts from a national rent-to-own consumer goods company. North Carolina customers allegedly received misleading collection notices from the entities simulating actual court notices and implying the customers had committed criminal offenses. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the entities filed criminal complaints against the customers, containing misleading information and resulting in actual summonses being issued. The complaint alleges violations of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Business Corporation Act, Professional Corporation Act, Uniform Partnership Act, and North Carolina’s Prohibited Practices by Collection Agencies Engaged in Collection of Debts from Consumers and seeks among other things, civil penalties, restitution, and injunctive relief.
As a result of the complaint filing, the court approved a temporary restraining order prohibiting the entities from engaging in debt collection practices and scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing.